Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AE5EC98FA for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 18:18:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 79049 invoked by uid 500); 27 Oct 2011 18:18:39 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 79016 invoked by uid 500); 27 Oct 2011 18:18:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@couchdb.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 79008 invoked by uid 99); 27 Oct 2011 18:18:39 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 18:18:39 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.4 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL,HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of cgsmcmlxxv@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.180 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.215.180] (HELO mail-ey0-f180.google.com) (209.85.215.180) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 18:18:31 +0000 Received: by eyg5 with SMTP id 5so3547809eyg.11 for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 11:18:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=s8yXqs2XKHA2Pd0NgDmgd+yiBUqHMU0c0rHToSmbW48=; b=JgWllcPvgXR6aBZedpZcD2h5ysI5Wvpp8XUG+P9mBMUESdvcItiNF2H6el8LK7rIdu sVhABuIR6YzyBinIlhwvTL28K7SGYLbTQyE89KTx/FkgQJ9nCRwypqvLgnC+MDtsfxhu 1DBFqAi4rfNKE4k96LiDXouktnx5dE7MeIzlM= Received: by 10.213.14.203 with SMTP id h11mr2918620eba.11.1319739489874; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 11:18:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (dynamic-62-87-247-18.ssp.dialog.net.pl. [62.87.247.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e62sm17142835eee.10.2011.10.27.11.18.06 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 27 Oct 2011 11:18:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4EA9A05E.2050407@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 20:18:06 +0200 From: CGS User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110922 Thunderbird/3.1.15 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: user@couchdb.apache.org Subject: Re: High latency (40ms) and low request rate (10 rps) under windows References: <31406785.20111025232214@imarto.net> <4EA7178D.40007@gmail.com> <101780326.20111026011900@imarto.net> <4EA7AF0F.80007@gmail.com> <1002823249.20111027032054@imarto.net> <4EA905B4.5000904@gmail.com> <883747569.20111027120911@imarto.net> <4EA91C98.4060707@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit No reference, just experience from my former jobs (comparing hdd's of the same type bought in the same time). Maybe the new hdd's are better from that point of view, I haven't tested on the new hdd's because such tests take a while. On 10/27/2011 07:47 PM, Mark Hahn wrote: >> Nevertheless, writing directly on the harddisk is not quite the best > practice because you reduce the life of your harddisk to at least half > > Do you have a reference for this? Drives are designed to be used 100% of > the time. >